Filed: Sep. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Re: ECF No. 18 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this Social Security appeal was originally due on December 5, 2016. ECF No. 2 (order making Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due 28 days after Defendant's answer); ECF No. 9 (Defendant's answer filed). On December 2, 2016, by stipulation of the parties, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days, to March 4, 2017. ECF No. 13. On February 28, 2017, the
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Re: ECF No. 18 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this Social Security appeal was originally due on December 5, 2016. ECF No. 2 (order making Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due 28 days after Defendant's answer); ECF No. 9 (Defendant's answer filed). On December 2, 2016, by stipulation of the parties, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days, to March 4, 2017. ECF No. 13. On February 28, 2017, the ..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: ECF No. 18
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this Social Security appeal was originally due on December 5, 2016. ECF No. 2 (order making Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due 28 days after Defendant's answer); ECF No. 9 (Defendant's answer filed). On December 2, 2016, by stipulation of the parties, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days, to March 4, 2017. ECF No. 13. On February 28, 2017, the Court granted a second extension of time to June 2, 2017, but noted in its order that "the Court does not anticipate granting similar requests for extensions of time in the future." ECF No. 15. Finally, on June 2, 2017, the Court granted the parties' stipulated request to extend the Plaintiff's deadline to file her motion for summary judgment to August 31, 2017. ECF No. 18. The Court noted that no further extensions of time would be granted. Id.
As of today's date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment or otherwise addressed her obligations to the Court.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992). In light of Plantiff's failure to prosecute her case, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the case without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
